Sudan

Posted by: ErikL on 01 June 2004

After Rwanda (just 10 years ago), everyone said "never again". Well, why isn't the global community/UN doing anything in Sudan other than urging the government and militia to halt the genocide? Mad

"Some 10,000 civilians have been killed. At least 130,000 refugees have fled to neighboring Chad. Over a million more have been internally displaced and are trapped by the militia in disease-ridden camps without adequate food or water. They face the imminent threat of starvation. The U.S. Agency for International Development estimates another 300,000 or more could die."
Posted on: 02 June 2004 by ErikL
Because nobody knows about it and/or cares, maybe?

I noticed that the NY Times, BBC, Guardian, Toronto Star, Jo'burg Star had exactly zero coverage of it on their World/Africa pages yesterday, and the Washington Post had 2 stories both 3 weeks old. Coverage of events in western Sudan are woeful to say the least.
Posted on: 02 June 2004 by Dan M
Ludwig,

I'm guessing they don't have massive oil reserves. Face it, US coverage of events outside the US is piss poor.

Dan
Posted on: 02 June 2004 by Paul Ranson
What would you suggest could be done?

Paul
Posted on: 02 June 2004 by Dan M
That's a tough problem. But considering the cost of armed intervention, I'd say the cheapest solution is to give anyone who wants it a free plane ticket and asylum.

Dan
Posted on: 02 June 2004 by ErikL
a) Enforce the ceasefire; b) Secure routes to allow aid to flow into the camps. Pretty basic, really.
Posted on: 02 June 2004 by ErikL
Also- the UN's been trying to raise aid money, but only 1/5 has been received, mostly from the US.

Where are the philanthropists of the world?

(Dan- To your point, in a story I read last night even a South African official said "they're just not strategically important". That doesn't sound like the African spirit.)

[This message was edited by Ludwig on Wed 02 June 2004 at 18:23.]
Posted on: 03 June 2004 by Paul Ranson
I don't see how you can 'fix' the underlying problem. And enforcing a ceasefire involves armed intervention. Consider how to have protected the Marsh Arabs from Saddam Hussein.

There's a feature on the BBC web site now, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3752871.stm but it makes depressing reading.

Paul
Posted on: 03 June 2004 by ErikL
Depressing reading indeed, Paul. On a positive note, a plan seems to be taking some form, if not slowly.

India today allocated 1,500 troops "for September/October", as part of a UN effort involving a desired 6,000 troops in the same timeframe. UN troops appear spread too thin to tackle this right now, and it seems to prioritize bringing the civil war to official closure by the end of (our) summer.

Hopefully they'll find a way to provide essentials to the refugees before then, with the $188 million from the US, $47 million from the EU, and more from non-UN sources. Otherwise, the UN predicts 700,000-800,000 deaths (revised upwards today).